The Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, approximately A.D. 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes. The original language was Anglo-Saxon (Old English), but these later entries are essentially Estuary English in tone. You could say, this is an EU "Withdrawalist, Libertarian and generally reactionary blog. Regular, but amateurish"(if often a tad infantile).

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Dear Friends,May I send you below for your information a copy of an article by the undersigned from today's "Irish Times" on the consequences for the EU integration project of France's No vote of Sunday last.

May I also send you an article by Jens-Peter Bonde MEP from today's Euobserver.com news service. This article makes the important point that continuation of the process of ratifying the EU Constitution in other countries depends on French President Jacques Chirac telling his fellow EU Heads of State and Government either to respect the French people's vote of Sunday last, or else to ignore it so that they can go ahead with their ratifications on the assumption that President Chirac's Government will make the French people change their minds at a later date, so that France can still ratify the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe".

If the Netherlands also votes No to the EU Constitution tomorrow, as is widely expected, Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende faces the same choice: either to tell the EU Member States that have not yet ratified the Constitution to go ahead with ratifying it, because the Dutch people's vote will be ignored or reversed in due time; or else that the Dutch vote should be respected and the ratification process should now halt.

In June 2001 Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern took the cravenly contemptible course of siding with his 14 friends among the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers and spurning his own people's vote, when he told his colleagues that they should go ahead with ratifying the Nice Treaty despite its rejection by Irish voters. The Danish Prime Minister acted in the same way when the Danish people voted No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

Will Jacques Chirac and Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende tell their EU colleagues that they must respect their own peoples' democratic vote, so that the EU Constitution ratification process must now cease? Or will they chose the undemocratic course the Irish and Danish Prime Ministers did before them when their peoples rejected the Nice and Maastricht Treaties in their respective countries?

It is unlikely that the French or Dutch leaders will show the contempt for their own people that the Irish and Danish Prime Ministesr showed; but we shall know definitely soon enough.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Coughlan

Secretary, The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, Ireland

The EU integration project is unlikely to recover from the French vote and without a State behind it, the euro cannot survive, writes Anthony Coughlan

* * *The French people's rejection of the proposed EU Constitution is a blow for democracy in France and and the whole of Europe. It should open the way to a saner, more rational way of organising our continent.

The reason is that the new EU treaty was an attempt to give the constitutional form of a supranational Federal State to the 25 countries of the present EU.

One can only be a citizen of a State. This Constitution aimed to make us real citizens of a real EU Federation for the first time, such that we would owe this new entity thereafter the prime duty of citizenship, namely, our obedience and loyalty. To attempt to make the citizens of 25 to 30 countries with their different languages and traditions into real citizens of one country called Europe, when there is no such thing as a single European people except statistically, has never been realistic.

Yet to create such a European Federation has been the central aim of the European Movement since Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman in the 1950s.

Each successive European treaty - Rome 1957, the Single European Act 1987, Maastricht 1992, Amsterdam 1998, Nice 2003 - has been "sold" to citizens as being necessary for jobs and growth, but has been politically designed to lead to ever closer integration, a shift of ever more power from Nation States to the supranational Brussels institutions, and a continual erosion of the national democracy and political independence of the different peoples of Europe's many countries. This has been "the great deception" of the EU integration project.

This process was meant to culminate in this EU Constitution, which would have clamped a rigid politico-economic straitjacket on 25 or more different countries. As people found out more about it,and they had a thorough debate on it in France, they have revolted at its implications.

That the French people who have been at the heart of the EU integration process for so long should reject it in this way is a shattering blow to the project, from which it is unlikely to recover. France's vote will surely come to be seen as an historical watershed.

One long-term effect is likely to be on the euro. A central aim of the supranational Federation envisaged by the EU Constitution was to provide a political counterpart for a single European currency. What we have at present is 12 countries, 12 Governments, 12 budgets and 12 tax policies, all using the same euro. Yet without one State behind it, the euro cannot survive in the long run.

Countries need maximum flexibility, not rigidity, in the modern world. The euro has been a political project from the beginning, aimed at reconciling France to German reunification,but using economic means quite inappropriate for this purpose.

Germany and France's high unemployment rate is significantly due to the euro. The euro imposes a one-size-fits-all interest rate policy on quite different economies, and an inflexible exchange rate that prevents States restoring their competitiveness by changing their currency's value.

France's death-blow to the Constitution means an EU Federation is now unlikely to come into being as a political counterpart to the euro.

... It is untrue to say that there is some legal obligation on the Netherlands or any other EU country to proceed with ratifying the EU Constitution, despite France's rejection. There is no such obligation. Where could it come from? There is a political Declaration annexed to the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" which says say that if four-fifths of States do not ratify it, they will meet to discuss what to do.

This is not the same as an obligation on States to proceed with ratification either individually or collectively if one country says No. The decision of Ireland or other EU States to proceed with ratification as if a French or Dutch No could be reversed or over-ruled at a later date, would be a political matter, but not a legal imperative. The political rationale for such a course would be that the Irish Government envisaged engaging in an act of collective pressure and bullying vis-a-vis France, similar to what Irish citizens had to put up with when they voted No to Nice in 2001. The French however are likely to prove less malleable than we were.

The two possible future for our European continent are either integration into a supranational State Federation or cooperation among States on the basis of the balance of power and influence between them.

The balance of power is fine as long as it stays balanced, which is the art of statecraft. Europe of the balance of power is now reasserting itself again. That great political realist, France's Charles De Gaulle, who once said that "Europe is a Europe of the Nations and the States or it is nothing", would not have been surprised.

* * *Anthony Coughlan is Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin, and Secretary, The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre__________________________________ARTICLE 2: CAN THE FRENCH REJECTION BE REJECTED?__________________________________

by Jens-Peter Bonde MEP

Author of the "Reader-Friendly Edition of the European Constitution" and President of the Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament* * *The French have rejected the proposed Constitution by 56% No-votes with a surprisingly high 70% turnout. Therefore the proposed Constitution is no longer a formal proposal.

It has been proposed under the rules of Nice demanding unanimity for EU treaty change. The only possibility to revive the document is a new proposal from a new Intergovernmental Conference, deciding by unanimity - including the support of the French Government. That could happen on 16/17 June when the Heads of State and Goverment meet for their next fixed summit in Brussels.

RESPECT OR IGNORE

But it is up to the French to decide if they will respect their referendum or ignore it. On 2 June 1992 the Danish voters rejected the Maastricht Treaty. Two days afterwards the Foreign Ministers met in Oslo in the fringe of a NATO meeting and decided formally to continue the ratification process in spite of the Danish people's No.

It was legally possible because the Danish government ignored the Danish referendum result and promised that they would come back with a ratification at a later date. And they did, after a new referendum on 18 May 1993 in which the Danes were offered some permanent opt-outs from the Treaty, which was then formally ratified by the Danish Government.

When Ireland voted No to the Treaty of Nice the Irish Government also ignored the No vote and came back at a later date with a new referendum. The Nice Treaty continued to exist as a formal proposal because the IrishGovernment revived it formally.

It is not an obligation on other governments to decide if the position of a country is fair or not on this matter. But they need the formal go-ahead from the French President before proceeding.

The ratification process cannot continue in good faith if it is not revived by the French.

DANISH AND IRISH EXAMPLES

The Netherlands will vote on tomorrow, Wednesday 1 June. The Dutch referendum is a voluntary referendum. It has no legal value - but it certainly has a political. The Dutch can therefore hold the referendum or cancel it according to their own choice.

The Danish referendum envisaged for 27 September is different because it is a legally binding referendum. There has to be a referendum in Denmark if the EU Constitution is not adopted by 150 of the 179 members of the Danish Parliament.

The majority in the Danish Parliament must decide to hold the referendum in a law proposing the ratification of the EU Constitution. Since this Constitution is now rejected there is no possibility of a binding referendum being held in Denmark unless the French President informs the Danish Government that France intends to ratify the proposed Constitution at a later date.

The Danish Government envisages the adoption of a law on 7 September that would pave the way for a 27 September referendum.

The draft Constitution has attached to it a non-binding declaration, No.30, about a possible summit to discuss the consequences if 20 of the 25 EU States have ratified the Constitution after 2 years and one or more countries have run into difficulties.

This Declaration does not alter the fact that the European Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Nice demand unanimity for new EU treaty ratification. There is a new article in the proposed EU Constitution with a similar content. But this is not law, yet.

The ratification process has to respect the requirement for unanimity amongst the 25 States as set out in the Treaty of Nice. After the French referendum the EU Constitution is therefore dead - unless the French authorities decide to revive it.

SPLITTING INSTEAD OF UNITING EUROPE

Politically the proposed Constitution does not unite Europe. Instead it splits it.

Politically the idea of a state constitution is dead.

A better way forward could be in establishing a working-group with an equal number of members in favour of the Constitution and against it and then seeing if they could agree on proposing ideas for common playing rulesinstead of the existing European Treaties as amended by Nice and the proposed EU Constitution.

We need a simple basic treaty of 50 articles or so in some 20 pages covering the necessary aspects of European cooperation. We do not need a Constitution so complex that even the French President does not know its precise contents.

President Chirac proved his lack of knowledge of the Constitution's contents on French television for everyone who can read to see. Now he has the chance to respect the French vote or reject it. Or perhaps elect a new French people!

Citizen: All right then, if it's resting I'll wake it up. (shouts very loudly) Hello Constitution! I've got a nice cuttlefish for you when you wake up, Politico Constitution!

Commissioner: (giving a little shove) There it moved.

Citizen: No he didn't. That was you pushing it.

Commissioner: I did not.

Citizen: Yes, you did. (takes Constitution out of envelope, shouts) Hello Constitution, (bangs it against desk) Constitution, wake up. Constitution. (throws it in the air and lets it fall to the floor) Now that's what I call a dead Constitution.

Commissioner: No, no it's stunned.

Citizen: Look Mrs, I've had just about enough of this. That Constitution is definitely deceased. And when I got it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out after a long squawk.

Commissioner: It's probably pining for the fjords.

Citizen: Pining for the fjords, what kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got it home?

Citizen: It's not pining, it's passed on. This Constitution is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late Constitution. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-Constitution.

Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it then.

Citizen: (to camera) If you want to get anything done you've got to complain till you're blue in the mouth.

Commissioner: Sorry guv, we're right out of Constitutions.

Citizen: I see. I see. I get the picture.

Commissioner: I've got a slug.

Citizen: Does it talk?

Commissioner: Not really, no. Its called Mandelson

Citizen: Well, it's scarcely a replacement, then is it?

Commissioner: Listen, I'll tell you what, (handing over a card) tell you what, if you go to my brother's shop in Blackburn he'll replace your Constitution for you.

Citizen: Blackburn eh?

Commissioner: Yeah.

Citizen: All right. He leaves, holding the Constitution.

Wake up Margot and smell the coffee

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 55 Reduction of the parties to a multilateral treaty below the number necessary for its entry into force

Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a multilateral treaty does not terminate by reason only of the fact that the number of the parties falls below the number necessary for its entry into force..

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

We Demand Our Say

Press ReleaseThe People's No CampaignMonday 30th May 2005

"Don't You Dare Mr. Blair...We Demand Our Referendum!"

Following the predicted rejection of the European Constitution by the French, The People's No Campaign demands that Tony Blair does not shirk away from his party's manifesto pledge.We demand that we get our referendum.

The Dutch will vote No on Wednesday in their referendum and Blair will be desperate to avoid the debate in this country. We demand that he goes to the European Council meeting on 16th June in Brussels and fight for the ratification process to continue so that the British people are able to express their opinion on the European Constitution. He must fulfil his party's promise to the electorate.

The question which must be asked of Blair and his Government is, "Why did you sign the Constitution document on behalf of the British people if you are now telling us that there are serious doubts?

He should be saying we are going ahead.

The inquest should only begin after the whole process has been completed.There is no need for 'a period of reflection.'The situation is quite clear and we want our say.

Blair himself has said that the EU is unworkable without a constitution so where are we going?

Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "For once The People's No Campaign is in agreement with the European Commission and that is that we must not leave the situation like this. It is important that every country is allowed to give its opinion on the Constitution and it would be an outrage if the British people were denied this right. The Prime Minister signed along with Jack Straw on our behalf but without our consent. We demand that the Prime Minister defend our right to have our referendum at the forthcoming European Council meeting on 16th June, as he promised.However, what is becoming apparent to all is that this is really now about the elites and the people. To seek retrospective approval for something which has never come from the people but which has been proposed by an arrogant, out of touch political elite was always going to be the bridge too far for the European Project.We will accept nothing less than a full debate on Britain's current position with the European Union. "

Monday, May 23, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

"EUROBULLY"

GERMAN POLITICIANS SEEK TO "EUROBULLY" FRENCH VOTERS ... Compiled For your information:_________________________

" I have always found the word 'Europe' on the lips of people who wantedsomething from others which they dared not demand under their own names."

- German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, Gedenken und Erinnerungen,1880

* * *Former German Ambassador to France, Dr Immo Stabreit, summarised how he sawEuropean integration as follows: "It is only natural that the eastern partof the continent will become our preoccupation for years to come, becauseGermans see this as a matter of historical destiny. The most fundamentalpriority we have is trying to integrate all of Europe. But for France theunderlying issue is all about coming to terms with its loss of influence inthe world."(International Herald Tribune,11-12 September 1999).

In this assessment the retiring Ambassador echoed the views of hissuperior, German Foreign Minister Johschka Fischer, whose speech of 12 May2000 at Humboldt University, Berlin, launched the process that led to theproposed EU Constitution which French and Dutch citizens will vote on thiscoming week.

"Creating a single European State bound by one European Constitution is thedecisive task of our time," said Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (DailyTelegraph,London, 27-12-1998).

The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" would achieve acentral goal of German Foreign policy by establishing a new European Unionin the constitutional form of a supranational EU Federation, of which 450million Europeans would be made real citizens for the first time. If theConstitution is ratified we would all owe this new European Union, nowfounded on its own State Constitution, the prime duty of citizenship,namely obedience and loyalty, over and above our own national citizenship.

As German Minister for Europe, Hans Martin Bury, said in "Die Welt" on 25February last: "The EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the UnitedStates of Europe."

A century and a quarter after Bismarck's remark quoted above, it is nowGermany's State interests and German political hegemony over the Europeancontinent that the proposed EU Constitution would primarily advance - atthe expense of the national democracy of Germany's own people,and of thepeoples of France, the Netherlands, and all other EU Members. The EUConstitution would also serve the interests of a small but powerfulpolitical, bureaucratic and ideological elite in Brussels and othernational capitals.

The completion of Germany's ratification of the EU Constitution by theGerman Bundesrat on Friday next 27 May, following approval by the Bundestagon 12 May last, has been timed to put maximum pressure on French voters tovote Yes on Sunday next,and Dutch voters on Wednesday week.

It is ironical that German Chancellor Schröder should break the norms ofdiplomatic protocol by intervening in France's referendum to call for a Yesvote on the eve of him and his party being rejected by the voters ofNorth Rhein-Westphalia by 45% to 37% in favour of the CDU.

If the German people had had a referendum on on the euro-currency as Francehad in 1992, they would almost certainly have rejected it. Now havingrefused to give the German people a vote on their project of conferring onthe EU the constitutional form of a supranational Federal State, Germany'spoliticians expect French voters to follow their lead by agreeing tosubsume France's national democracy and independence in a German-dominatedEurope. That this is the central thrust of their political ambition, thesequence of quotations from leading German politicians below makesclear(The quotations are listed in chronological order backwards):-__________

"European monetary union has to be complemented by a political union - thatwas always the presumption of Europeans including those who made activepolitics before us. . .What we need to Europeanise is everything to do witheconomic and financial policy. In this area we need much more, let's callit co-ordination and co-operation to suit British feelings, than we hadbefore. That hangs together with the success of the euro."

"We need a European Constitution. The European Constitution is not the'final touch' of the European structure; it must become its foundation.The European Constitution should prescribe that ... we are building aFederation of Nation-States. . .The first part should be based on theCharter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European summit at Nice. .. If we transform the EU into a Federation of Nation-States, we willenhance the democratic legitimacy ... We should not prescribe what the EUshould never be allowed to ... I believe that the Parliament and theCouncil of Ministers should be developed into a genuine bicameralparliament."

- Dr Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, EuropeanParliament, 4 April 2001________

"We already have a federation. The 11,soon to be 12, member States adoptingthe euro have already given up part of their sovereignty, monetarysovereignty,and formed a monetary union, and that is the first step towardsa federation."

"The last step will then be the completion of integration in a EuropeanFederation ... Such a group of States would conclude a new Europeanframework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation. On thebasis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions,establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice... a strong parliament and a directly elected president. Such a drivingforce would have to be the avant-garde, the driving force for thecompletion of political integration ... This latest stage of European Union... will depend decisively on France and Germany."

"The introduction of the euro is probably the most important integratingstep since the beginning of the unification process. It is certain that thetimes of individual national efforts regarding employment policies, socialand tax policies are definitely over. This will require to finally burysome erroneous ideas of national sovereignty ... I am convinced ourstanding in the world regarding foreign trade and international financepolicies will sooner or later force a Common Foreign and Security Policworthy of its name. . . National sovereignty in foreign and security policywill soon prove itself to be a product of the imagination."

"Our future begins on January 1 1999. The euro is Europe's key to the 21stcentury. The era of solo national fiscal and economic policy is over."

- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder,31 December 1998__________

"The euro is a sickly premature infant, the result of an over-hastymonetary union."

- German Opposition leader Gerhard Schröder, March 1998__________

"Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, oneconstitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age,German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said yesterday."

- The Guardian, London, 26 November 1998____________

"In Maastricht we laid the foundation-stone for the completion of theEuropean Union. The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisivestage in the process of European union, which within a few years will leadto the creation of what the founding fathers dreamed of after the last war:the United States of Europe."

- German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, April 1992________

"There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was notlinked to one State."

"A European currency will lead to member-nations transferring theirsovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetaryaffairs. . . It is an illusion to think that States can hold on to theirautonomy over taxation policies."

- Bundesbank President Hans Tietmeyer, 1991_________

"On the basis of repeated meetings with him and of an attentive observationof his actions, I think that if in his own way W.Hallstein (ed:firstPresident of the European Commission) is a sincere 'European', this is onlybecause he is first of all an ambitious German. For the Europe that hewould like to see would contain a framework within which his country couldfind once again and without cost the respectability and equality of rightsthat Hitler's frenzy and defeat caused it to lose; then acquire theoverwhelming weight that will follow from its economic capacity; and,finally, achieve a situation in which its quarrels concerning itsboundaries and its unification will be assumed by a powerful coalition."

- General Charles de Gaulle, Memoirs of Hope, 1970

*******************************Compiled and disseminated for the information of French and Netherlandsvoters and others by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary, The National Platform EUResearch and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland, andSenior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy,Trinity College Dublin;+00-353-1-8305792. Please feel free to disseminate this document further asyou see fit, without need of reference to or acknowledgement of its source.******************************

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Here we go, here we go, here we go

The official launch of The People's "No" Campaign (against the European Constitution) is to take place at 2 pm Wednesday 25th May 2005. It will be held at The Conference Room, Abingdon House, 13 Little College Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3SH. The launch has been sponsored by Lord Stoddart.

Congratulations to Campaign Director Neil Herron and Research Director Dr Richard North, for what I hope will see, the eventual burning of the odious rag

Freedom in Europe Day

Article 1. The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm......

And long may it be so. A sovereign Nation State, free of the corrupt 'Oligarchy of the European Union'

Interestingly, also on this day, in 1933, Vidkun Quisling formed Norway's National Socialist party with Johan Hjort. After Germany invaded, Quisling was installed as "Minister President" - a position he held until the end of the war, after which he was executed as a traitor by firing squad. His name has since become a byword for treachery and collaboration.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

"bugger"

How are you going to celebrate "Tax Freedom Day" this year?. That extra bottle of sparkly something after your 48 hour week, a bar of chocolate, or maybe you will really splash out with a weekend a trip to Paris or Berlin.

Then don't plan on the 1st of June, as European Union finance ministers yesterday agreed on a voluntary levy on airline tickets to fund extra development aid for Africa. The optional charge on airline tickets falls short of what French President Jacques Chirac originally proposed with backing from German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But it could break the ice on what might one day become a broader tax to help Africa.

Yeh as if, as Richard North writes on his blog, this is one to watch, once the "ice is broken" the way is clear for a "European tax", which can then be extended from its hypothecated base to cover broader expenditure issues.

.

People in Britain will spend over 152 days of this year toiling, just to pay their taxes (5 months). This year, Tax Freedom Day will fall on 31 May.

It's a tribute to Enron Brown's skill with "stealth" taxes that so few people seem to have noticed the huge rise in taxes that has overtaken them. But Tax Freedom Day is a clear measure of the total burden which he can't escape.

And don't forget that Enron Brown has been on a borrowing binge, which future taxpayers will have to pay for. Adding that burden I estimate it will push the date out to 11 June by 2007.

During the Middle Ages peasants did not belong to themselves. Everything they owned, their food, homes, and animals all belonged to the lord of the manor. Known as serfs, peasants were required to work for 50 days for their lord and in return were allowed to farm their own piece of land. The peasants were not free to leave the manor and were required to ask for permission. To gain freedom a peasant had to save money for his own land or marry a free person.

Friday, May 13, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Latin America rejects EU Constitution

ALADI concerned with Falklands EU inclusion. The Latin American Integration Association, the twelve member organization seated in Montevideo points out that the EU attitude “ignores the existence of a sovereignty dispute recognized by the United Nations and the Organization of American States”, between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. State that, the inclusion of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands in the European Union constitutional treaty is of “great concern”

Resolution 291 referring to Argentine austral insular territories was unanimously approved by ALADI members, extending a “forceful support to the legitimate rights of Argentina over those islands”, said an Argentine spokesperson. The resolution also calls on both sides to find a quick solution to the long standing dispute.

The Argentine government claims that the South Atlantic islands currently under British sovereignty, have been included in the Annex II, Title IV, Part III of the EU Constitutional Treaty which was signed October 29, 2004.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Mockery

Greece is regarded as the birthplace of democracy.

democracy (Gk. demos kratia, 'people authority')Rule of the people, as opposed to rule by one (autocracy) or a few (oligarchy). Greece is regarded as the birthplace of democracy.

Greece has completed its ratification of the European Union constitution after an opposition bid to hold a public referendum failed.

An oligarchy overwhelmingly backed the treaty by 268 votes to 17 last month. The Greek opposition's motion to hold a referendum was supported by only 123 MPs in the 300-member parliament, with 151 against, so the original ratification holds.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Heart Breaking News, 5.4 million Lemmings

Slovakia's parliament ratifies EU constitution

Over the past few months, Slovakia has seen only a lukewarm debate on the EU charter, mostly among politicians and experts. The government distributed about two million leaflets informing citizens about the EU constitution.

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Anschluss II (Enter the Harlot)

In 1938, Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg was forced to agree to Hitler's demands for Anschluss, but reneged, calling for a plebiscite. The Austian nation didn’t get it then and Hitler marched in. Guess what, they are not going to get a plebiscite this time either.

Members of Austria's ruling People's Party (soon to be ruled) said that the constitution would give small nations like Austria greater influence within the EU.

The lower house of Austria’s parliament has ratified the EU constitution.

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Pollution Solution

European Union Parliament want to promote a system of smiling face signs at beaches, like the "smileys" used in e-mails, to inform bathers of the level of water cleanliness in the sea, lakes and rivers.

They are also urging the EU to devise an emergency plan to clean up after major pollution accidents.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

unlawfully spent EU funds = €5.34bn

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

EU Reach Australia

Australia accounts for 96 per cent of all nickel imports to the European Union, 24 per cent of the continent's lead and 21 per cent of its zinc.

Come The Age . Australian miners could be $100 million out of pocket if the European Union presses ahead with REACH laws aimed at restricting potentially harmful imports, a new report has found.

A study by the (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics), ABARE commissioned by the federal government and the Minerals Council of Australia , follows concerns about the impact of the proposed laws.

The REACH(registration, evaluation and authorisation on chemicals) Directive are aimed at improving the screening of metal imports that could potentially cause health problems.

The study found under certain circumstances zinc exports to the European Union could fall 16 per cent by 2010, at a cost to the Australian economy of $100 million. And nickel and lead exports could fall by 11.8 per cent and 6 per cent respectively.

Further studies are to be done on other Australian mineral exports affected by the REACH laws, including its $300 million-a-year iron ore exports and $100 million-a-year copper exports.

Monday, May 09, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Margot (Goebbels) Wallstrom

Warning: this post is vicious and nasty.

In my previous post, I eluded, that EU Propaganda Commissioner Wallstrom was a student of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who wrote an essay entitled "The Jews are Guilty" which concludes with a list of 10 things we must say again and yet again:

While Vaclav Klaus warns that in the new EU, the countries will lose their exclusive right to draft their own legislation and the Czech Republic's weight will diminish in the voting procedures, Wallstrom says that the treaty will establish a fairer and more efficient decision-making process in the EU and simplify its legal system. She is of the view that more controlling powers will be delegated to the elected European Parliament, while the European public, too, will have a greater influence on EU policies.

Wallstrom said that these were the arguments she would use with him (Klaus). Everyone tries to submit the best arguments.

You and the Czech people will have to make up your minds. Do not tell me that the Czech people wants this or that. I think I know something about leadership. A people thinks the way its intelligentsia teaches it to think. It has the ideas of its intellectual leaders. It is your intellectual duty to make clear to the Czech people the decision they should make. Should you not tell them that the Czech people have chosen the right side? You have seen Rotterdam. That should enable you to properly evaluate the decision your president made [to accept German occupation].

The above is from a blunt speech, given when Goebbels addressed Czechoslovakian artists and journalists who were visiting Berlin. Goebbels told his audience that they had better get used to the fact of German (European union) rule. The speech was given on 11 September 1940. Goebbels credited himself with a rhetorical masterpiece. His diary entry for 14 September 1940 notes: "My speech to the Czechs was a tremendous success. It entirely changed their outlook. Even I hadn't expected that to happen."Wallstrom said. "It is not yet late. This requires time"

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Eurosceptics, the new Jews of Europe

In today's Telegraph it is reported that the European Propaganda Commissioner has started accusing Eurosceptics of risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to "nationalistic pride". Margot Wallstrom, the commissioner who must sell the draft constitution to voters, argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s.

The language that Wallstrom uses, is very similar to the language of the infamous Joseph Goebbels when writing in his weekly BLOG 'Das Reich'He wrote an essay dated 16 November 1941 "The Jews are Guilty" which concludes with a list of 10 things we must say again and yet again:

Just substitute the words Jew, Reich etc. with Eurosceptic and European Union and you get an indication of what the "fragrant one" must have on her locker for her bed time reading.

Every Jew(Eurosceptic)is our enemy in this historic struggle, regardless of whether he vegetates in a Polish ghetto or carries on his parasitic existence in Berlin or Hamburg or blows the trumpets of war in New York or Washington. All Jews (Eurosceptic) by virtue of their birth and their race are part of an international conspiracy against National Socialist Germany(The European Union).They want its defeat and annihilation, and do all in their power to bring it about. That they can do nothing inside the Reich(The European Union) is hardly a sign of their loyalty, but rather of the appropriate measures we took against them.

Read the rest of "The Jews are Guilty" (Here) Apply your own word substitution

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Bollocks or Banana's

"The EU banana import regime is changing but the level of protection is not increasing", argued EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel . (31 January 2005)

Today EuObserverA dispute launched by Latin American banana producing countries against the European Union's proposed new tariff regime risks sparking a new trade war between developing nations.

If a banana or a bunch of bananas had been subject to the kind of handling that the banana dispute has been getting at the WTO, it would have become a mushy, unedible pulp to be thrown away and the mess cleaned up.Summary of case:EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Reg. No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas and subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas (the "BFA"), which implement, supplement and amend that regime.

DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorised US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a compliance panel which did not issue a ruling. Ecuador requested a compliance panel which found the new EC regime WTO-inconsistent. Ecuador obtained authorisation on 18/5/2000 to suspend concessions (US$ 201,6 million)."

Current situation:Understanding reached with the US on 11 Apr. 2001 and with Ecuador on 30 Apr. 2001 on the resolution of the dispute.

TOP SECRET PRIME MINISTER

(a) Self-Defence;(b) To avert an exceptionally overwhelming humanitarian disaster or catastrophe; and(c) Via a mandate from the Security Council acting under chapter VII of the UN charter

As you are aware none of these avenues currently suffice. Iraq poses no direct threat to the United Kingdom. At best it may threaten its neighbours, however the overwhelming opinion is that the current sanctions and inspection regimes have sufficed since the Gulf War in order to contain Saddam hence significantly eliminating any danger of an imminent attack.

I understand how it is being argued that terrorists may get there hands on weapons and hence become a threat. However there must be a degree of imminence. It is important that the implications are understood before proceeding with our American partners in their doctrine for regime-change, I will be justifying what in essence may turn out to be an illegal war. However this is why it is necessary to grey the lines as much as possible.

As agreed I will be drafting this justification and it should ready in one week. If we succeed in this argument, it will set the precedent for planned future conflicts that have been discussed like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. I trust this will satisfy your requirements as well as those of our partners.

ATTORNEY GENERAL1 March 2003

update > This was removed from our site because it was a forgery.>> Statewatch

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage.
(click on image to enlarge)

Is your DNA Private Property

By Anne Palmer

If Blair gets in again, I doubt there will be a need to vote in another election or for another Prime Minister for this country. Let us see what the man The Sun is backing, signed us up to on 29th October 2004. Something that is also very important to Mr Blair and his complete integration into the European Union. Identity Cards. It has already been established, (during the debates in our Parliament, that the introduction of ID cards) that "the Constitutional significance of the (ID) Bill, is that it adjusts the fundamental relationship between the individual and the State". The people are not told this of course!

But in what way? (This is a quote from the Earl of Northesk, debate in the Lords. 21st March 2005) “It transfers "ownership" of our identities from our own hands into those of the State”. It is also adds insult to injury for in the Bill, it is made clear that we should have to pay for that dubious privilege. Not only that, the ID Cards remain the property of the State. We also are expected to notify any small changes, name, house change etc and to pay for the alteration too. Given what I have just written there, it also has to be remembered that if we ratify the Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe, then we transfer permanently that power over our identities to the European Union.

Although it is termed a "National" ID Card, the instruction comes from the European Union. There are quite a number of Reports, Directives and Regulation on "Deeper and more meaningful Citizenship" in readiness to get us to love the European Union. But for now, our oath of allegiance is to our Queen and this Country. And we must realise that once more, and to use Mr Blair's own words, we will "Let battle be joined", for, whether we like it or not, we are duty bound by Oath to defend our Queen and Country, and, although perhaps HE cannot remember, we, the people have fought two world wars to keep this Country from being governed by others, and the people will, in the end, fight to keep it that way.

Should we ratify the EU Constitution ID cards become an EU Competence. For here it is in that Constitution, “The Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe (Meaning the Union)

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Art III-125 (2)

Article III-1251. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right, referred to in Article I-10 (2)(a), of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, European laws or framework laws may establish measures for that purpose.

2. For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, a European law or framework law of the Council may establish measures concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document and measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

If you have taken the trouble to read this, you might begin to understand how many of us feel. I, along with thousands, if not millions will never carry an ID Card that has intimate details on a massive data base to be shared around by many organisations and countries, and that has the EU ring of stars on the face of it. We are British Nationals not European nationals and to have false information on the Data Base would, we are told, invite a hefty fine.

Just before signing off, perhaps I should mention as “overseas territories’ have been in the news this weekend, - UK nationals include individuals who are British citizens, British Dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British overseas citizens, or who are British subjects under the British Nationality Act 1981, or who are British protected persons under that Act. .....

Mr. MacShane: (16 Mar 2005 : Column 341W) A number of provisions are made for the overseas countries and territories (OCT) of the UK and other EU member states in the EU Constitutional Treaty. Articles III-286 to III-291 in Title IV Part III of the Constitutional Treaty set out the provisions relative to the association of certain overseas countries and territories with the European Union. These articles closely follow Articles 182 to 188 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Annex II to the Constitutional Treaty contains the list of overseas countries and territories to which Title IV Part III of the Constitution applies. It is in substance the same as Annex II to the TEC.

The following UK Overseas Territories are listed in Annex II to the Constitutional Treaty: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falklands Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena and Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands. Although listed as an OCT in the Annex, Bermuda has been excluded from successive Association instruments at its own request.

The geographical extent of the Union is set out in Article IV-440 of the Constitutional Treaty which corresponds to Article 299 of the TEC, with modifications to take account of successive accessions. Gibraltar is covered by paragraph 4 of Article IV-440, in substance the same as Article 299.4 TEC. Section 1, Title II of Protocol 8 to the Constitutional Treaty sets out the specific provisions relating to Gibraltar. These were originally incorporated in the UK's 1972 Act of Accession.